Why the arab world considers alligning themselves with Islamo-facist organization...


http://www.transporttrends.com/mvnforum/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=1358

I am not familiar with Miller since Saturday Night Live and a few failed talk shows... I have no idea how he got these apiphanies... but boy is he blunt...
He makes Bush seem like a member of PETA with this unwavering analysis...

If my goal had been to share comments that would match the extreems of what killa passes as respectable analysis; I would have posted this...


--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Miller is a comedian who has a show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO.


He recently shared the following on the Middle East situation on Monday 10th Nov 2003:
---------------------------------------------------------


"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service
to all Americans who still don't get it,
I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs,
which is all you really need.

Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country.
There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.
It's a made up word.
Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years.
Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient
but is really a modern invention

Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war,
Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan,
and there were no "Palestinians."

As soon as the Jews took over and started growing
oranges as big as basketballs,
what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians,"
weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian"
anymore to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy
at our deaths, until someone points out they're being taped.


Instead, let's call them what they are
:
"Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life
And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In
The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN.
How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country.
Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't.
They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years,
especially two years ago at Camp David
but if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights
and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse,
you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.

That's no fun. No, they want what all the other
Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel.
They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course --
that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity"
as their textbooks call it --
for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries
to divert the attention of their own people
away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate,
poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth,
and if you've ever been around God's Earth . . . you know
that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic
about the great history and culture of the Muslim Midleast.
Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the
world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that
one.

Chew this around & spit it out: 500 million Arabs; 5 million Jews.
Think of all the Arab countries as a football field,
and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it.
And now these same folks swear that, if Israel gives them
half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals..

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to
obliterate the tiny country and the constant din
of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea?
Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day:
Just reverse the Numbers.
Imagine 500 million Jews and 5 million Arabs.
I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it .
Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades
and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.

Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations
to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense.
Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible.
Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their
bread with the blood of children? Disgusting.

No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace,
the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that,
with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as
Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible,
and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of
super models who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger
of losing moral weight. We've already lost some.
After September 11th, our president told us and the world he was going
to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them.
Beautiful.
Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of
an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day),
start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day,
we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration
to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean
and east of the Jordan.


[Edited by - colorfl1 on 07-28-2006 3:51 PM]

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=w060724&s=brook072806

HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES EMBARRASS THEMSELVES.
Out of Proportion
by Joshua Brook
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 07.28.06
The war between Israel and Hezbollah has sparked widespread debate on the subject of proportionality. One might have hoped that the human rights community would take this opportunity to educate political leaders and the public on the international law of proportionality and how it applies to the current fighting. Indeed, some groups have done just that. But others have chosen to brazenly distort international law in their zeal to condemn Israel.

Most of the public discussion of proportionality focuses on two questions: first, whether the amount of force employed by Israel is proportionate to the amount of force used by Hezbollah; and, second, whether the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is proportionate to the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah. These questions may or may not be legitimate ones, but they have nothing to do with the concept of proportionality as that term is used in international law. Under humanitarian law--that is, the body of international law that governs the conduct of armed conflict--proportionality has a specific meaning, the application of which is critical to determining whether a party to an armed conflict has committed war crimes.

Broadly speaking, the law of war is divided into jus ad bellum, which governs when a party may engage in armed conflict, and jus in bello (also known as humanitarian law), which governs the conduct of parties engaged in armed conflict. While there is little disagreement that Israel's use of armed force in Lebanon satisfies the requirements of jus ad bellum (Michael Walzer laid out the case last week in TNR), there has been a vigorous debate over whether the means chosen by Israel violate humanitarian law.

Jus in bello has two prongs: First, weapons and methods of warfare that cause unnecessary injury are prohibited. (The most famous example is poison gas.) Second, parties to armed conflict are required to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and, therefore, are prohibited from attacking purely civilian targets--that is, targets with no military function. However, the law recognizes that targets with military objectives may be situated among civilians or have both civilian and military uses. In such cases, the law prohibits indiscriminate attacks and requires the attacking party to employ methods of warfare that minimize the harm to civilians.

The proportionality principle requires parties to an armed conflict to balance the expected military advantage of an attack with the expected harm to civilians. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits attacks against military objectives where the damage to civilians would be "excessive" in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated by the attack. Of course, predicting the military advantage and civilian damage that will result from a particular attack is inherently uncertain. Furthermore, the term "excessive" is not defined. Thus, the application of the principle of proportionality--i.e. determining whether a particular attack is disproportionate--is imprecise and involves a large degree of subjectivity. (If missiles are falling on your house or your friend's house, you are less likely to believe a counterstrike is disproportionate than if missiles are falling on a stranger's house or your enemy's house.)

Given the ambiguous state of the law, there is certainly plenty of room for legitimate debate as to whether, in the current conflict, Israel has abided by its legal obligations. But what is beyond debate is that, during the last few weeks, some human rights advocates have misinterpreted the principle of proportionality--twisting the law in order to make unfounded accusations against Israel.

To understand just how shoddy some of these human rights advocates have been in their legal reasoning, it helps to start with those human rights groups that are actually treating international law seriously. Take Human Rights Watch (HRW) first. On July 17, the organization published a comprehensive document titled "Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah." The Q&A accurately explains humanitarian law and fairly applies it to the current conflict. With regard to Hezbollah, HRW states that the taking of hostages is "strictly forbidden" and is a "war crime." It further states that the use of imprecise Katyusha rockets in civilian areas "violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime." With regard to targets attacked by Israel, HRW states that civilian targets with military uses (airports, roads, bridges) may, in certain circumstances, be legally attacked, but that Israel is constrained by the principle of proportionality. With regard to whether the destruction of power stations is disproportionate, HRW reserves judgment but notes that "Israel faces a very high burden to justify these attacks." HRW has also urged Israel to cease the use of cluster munitions in populated areas, as such use "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law."

Similarly, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which has a mandate from states party to the Geneva Conventions to carry out certain humanitarian activities in connection with those treaties, has issued statements urging all parties to uphold their obligations under international law. The ICRC has not accused Israel (or Hezbollah, for that matter) of committing war crimes, and has implicitly endorsed the potential legitimacy of the Israeli blockade of Lebanon, while reminding Israel of its obligation "to respect the principle of proportionality when establishing a blockade."

By contrast, Amnesty International has jettisoned international law entirely; instead, the group seems to be defining a war crime as any military action of which Amnesty International disapproves. Its website blithely condemns the Israeli targeting of bridges, roads, power stations, and the Beirut airport as "blatant violations of international law, which include war crimes." This accusation makes no reference to the principle of proportionality or, indeed, to any international legal instrument whatsoever.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, hasn't been much better. In a press release dated July 14, she accurately stated the law of proportionality:

[W]hile Israel has legitimate security concerns, international humanitarian law requires that parties to a conflict refrain from attacks directed against civilian objects. In particular, they have an obligation to exercise precaution and to respect the proportionality principle in all military operations so as to prevent unnecessary suffering among the civilian population.
Yet five days later she argued that "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable"--and then went on to suggest that Israel may be guilty of war crimes. This statement badly twists humanitarian law by completely ignoring the principle of proportionality.

On Wednesday, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland became the latest human rights advocate to butcher the concept of proportionality. "Proportionality is there in the law," he said. "The law has been made through generations of experience on the battlefield. If you kill more civilians than military personnel, one should not attack." In fact, this one-to-one principle has no basis in the law. There are plenty of scenarios under which the proportionality principle would permit such a strike--say, an attack that killed two Hezbollah operatives about to launch a missile, while also killing three civilians who were being used as human shields.

One may certainly empathize with the reluctance of organizations that are ideologically committed to protecting the dignity of human life to acknowledge the legal reality that it is sometimes permissible to kill innocent people. But ideological convictions do not relieve these groups of the obligation to tell the truth or to fairly apply international law. As Human Rights Watch has shown, commitment to human rights and intellectual integrity need not be mutually exclusive.

By proscribing certain actions while permitting others, humanitarian law seeks to tame warfare of its cruelest practices. The proportionality principle seeks the maximum protection for civilians while acknowledging the ugly reality that, in warfare, 100 percent protection is impossible. By obliterating the distinction between war and war crimes, groups like Amnesty International and the United Nations undermine the protection that humanitarian law does afford to civilians caught up in armed conflict. International law is not strengthened by distorting or ignoring its provisions while solemnly invoking its principles. Sadly, this seems to have been lost on some of the organizations and institutions charged with protecting human rights.

Joshua Brook is an attorney in New York. He was research assistant to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan for his book, Secrecy: The American Experience (Yale University Press, 1998).

Meanwhile, I'm concerned that Israel isn't being aggressive enough militarily.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003159826_webbelltown28.html

1 dead, at least 5 wounded in shootings

Seattle Times staff

One person was dead and five others were hospitalized this afternoon in a shooting at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle by a man who declared he was "angry with Israel."

Seattle police later arrested the alleged gunman, who reportedly had walked into the building between Lenora and Virginia streets on Third Avenue in Belltown and started shooting.

At least three victims were women, according Seattle Fire Department medics. Their names haven't been released, but one woman, described as 43, had been shot in the abdomen. The age of a second shooting victim was not available, but police said she was 17 weeks pregnant. She had been shot in the arm. Details about the other shooting victims were unavailable.

An employee in the building said she was at her desk when she heard what she at first thought were balloons popping.

"It went 'Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop!' and then we heard a woman scream," said the employee, who asked that her name not be used.

"One of the receptionists told me that he shot her and then demanded that she call 911," the employee said. "He told the police that it was a hostage situation and he wanted us to get our weapons out of Israel."

Most of the workers were able to leave through a back door.

A few minutes later, the man surrendered to officers.

Most of the victims were able to exit the building on their own accord.

"I saw one friend –– she had been shot twice in the stomach and was bleeding," the witness said.

The employee said the man apparently was buzzed through a security door by a receptionist.

According to Amy Wasser-Simpson, the vice president for planning and community services for the Jewish Federation, the man told staff members, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," then began shooting, Wasser-Simpson said she heard the account from staff members who witnessed the shootings.

"A number of staff people heard some popping sounds, then they heard a scream," Wasser-Simpson said. "They escaped out the back door."

Shortly after that, one staff member who was shot twice escaped through the back door as well, Wasser-Simpson said.

Wasser-Simpson was not in the building because she was working from home today. She also is in charge of the organization for the moment because the federation's new chief executive officer has yet to start the job and the interim CEO is out of town.

Hundreds of people have died in Israel and Lebanon since Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrillas seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid July 12, prompting Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon and a barrage of rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah.

The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, founded in 1926, is an umbrella organization for the local Jewish community. It raises money for Jewish social-welfare organizations, runs youth and adult Jewish educational programs, and engages in efforts in support of Israel. It was a sponsor of the Solidarity with Israel rally on Mercer Island last Sunday.

The federation's mission is to ensure Jewish survival and enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide.

Even as rabbis were trying to find out more about security in preparation for tonight's services, Robert Jacobs, the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, was issuing a recommendation to every Jewish institution, synagogue and temple that they get their people out of their buildings "until we find out if it's a lone incident."

"We're trying to keep the community as calm as possible," he added. Rabbi Daniel Weiner of Temple De Hirsch Sinai had said he was checking with police to see if security there needed to be bolstered, if indeed, the shootings were related to wider issues.

But several rabbis said they were continuing with services anyway.

"Even if [the shooting] is based on hate, we're not going to let that have any kind of victory over our community gathering," said Rabbi Jonathan Singer of Seattle's Temple Beth Am.

Rabbi Daniel Weiner of Temple De Hirsch Sinai, which has locations in Seattle and Bellevue, said early this evening that he was checking with police to see if more security would be needed for that evening's service.

Rabbi Jim Mirel of Temple B'nai Torah in Bellevue said he was "extremely shocked, extremely saddened by the situation, and that his congregation was worried about a member of their temple who works at the federation.

Posted by firefly:

Killa, I havent seen you condemn a single thing Hizbollah or Hamas has done.

you haven't read then. I have said many times I don't support terrorism. You guys here seem to have a problem with someone who is critical of both sides.

To say that having a nation full of Jews is racist is being anti-semitic. You may not see it, but it is.

Thats not what I said. A nation that privaleges members of a society over others, based on race/ethnicity is the textbook definition of racism. You may not see it, but that is a very simple fact.

Do you condemn The Vatican? It is a Chatholic state.

The vatican is a state unlike any other, its not really a state in a 'real' sense but technically it is. Vatican city is really more like a religous commune, there are less than 1000 'citizens'. I have a problem with the catholic church and the role it has played in many things, including, support of the Nazi's, but I don't think this reall fits into anything we are discussing.

Saying "exterminated by a race of people that who don't have anything to gain" is pointing out that the only think Syria, Hizbullah and Iran have to gain from exterminating Israel is killing all the Jews. How is that racism?

Perhaps I misunderstood that.

Israel has always been the land of the Jews. If you can find an empty country and gays would all like to live there, whats the problem with that? I would have no problem if thats what gays wanted to do. You denying them that right is you being homophobic.

The problem is the land wasn't empty, which is why Zionists in their time employed terrorist tactics, and eventually 1 million people were displaced as a result of the formation of Israel. Whats done is done, but I'd like keep that fact straight, the land was definitely not empty.

You are trying to compare Israels actions to Germanys actions in the early 1900's. Germany had nothing to gain from eliminating Jews. They were proactive in devising a way to eliminate as many Jews in as short an amount of time as possible. They called it the Final Solution. Israel is not trying to wipe out a race. They are protecting themselves from an aggressor, who has been trying to exterminate the jews for a long time. If you dont agree with the way they are doing it, thats fine, we can all debate that. But you are saying that Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran have a right to do what they are doing. In your example the Jews are the German's, killing anyone different then them, and the Arabs are the Jews, doing nothing wrong, and being persecuted for just being arabs. Is that the case here? All your posts indicate that this is what you believe is happening.

This. Makes. You. An. Anti-semite. You are simply trying to rationalize your opinions, But the fact is that your views are anti-semitic. Get used to it. Join the NSM. Shave your head. Have fun with it.

Tell me where I have this wrong.

Guys will you stop pushing me to join some neo nazi group? PLease.
I never compared the state of Israel to the state of Germany. I compared the citizens of both states who stood by as atrocities were being commited, in their names. I never said anything about Hizboolla, hamas, or any of those groups having a right to do anything. You guys are really going crazy. These are written words, they are just a few pages back, why do you guys have to argue with straw men instead of my words?
Reading is fundamental.

[Edited by - Killa4luv on 07-29-2006 12:27 AM]

Why shouldn't Isreali kids want to join in the fight against terrorists who hate them because of their religion?

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Rich:

Why shouldn't Isreali kids want to join in the fight against terrorists who hate them because of their religion?

I'm speechless.

Given your Hitler analogy, that could be a good thing.

Hey Killa.
I personally don't think that you are Nazi or Anti-Semitic.
You just have personal problem to admin that you was wrong in something.
I saw you posts about other topics and it is same story.

You are acting as a kid or teenager not as a man.
All of us are wrong at list 50% of time. And if you want to advance you life and to be a Man you should learn to accept and admit to others that you were wrong at some point. It is nothing bad for anybody to admit it.

I saw quiet a bit of people like you and, believe me, their life is miserable. At some point they need psychological help.
Try meditation or Yoga - it helps better that doctors.

Like father, like son.